Comments

Because Latin, not Greek, is, by and large, the official language of the Roman Rite. I would not mind, however, singing "Hagios ho Theos," on Good Friday, or "Kyrie Eleison" on any day. For that matter, nothing prevents celebrating the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite in Greek. By the way, you used an "eta" where you should have used a "nu" and an "epsilon" where you should have used an "eta".

Despite the jest and the point that seems to be lost -- our understanding and appreciation for Greek or Aramaic are equally important to the entire Christian community. For a few hundred years our Church [Pre-Schisms] expressed herself and worshipped mostly through Greek. The renewals of Vat II call for the Church to again appreciate ALL the rich heritage of our faith. Translations focused solely upon Latin are only halfway complete -- the very basics of our faith and liturgical life depend upon good translations of the Good News and Hebrew Scriptures.

Greek seems to have been almost universal for only the first four centuries AD.

By the fifth century, various local Churches adopted "liturgical" languages as something other than the vernacular. Thus, by the fifth century we have liturgical Coptic, Amharic, Armenian, Georgian, Syriac, Old Church Slavonic (9th c), and Latin.

Note also that the Roman Liturgy was careful to keep some Hebrew and Greek.

Moreover, Greek often translated phrases literally.
Fortunately, the early translators of Scripture into English kept the Hebraisms that had previously passed into Latin, giving the English language a richer character (ex. apple of his eye; rise and shine; etc.)

The Wikipedia page has the following: Κοινή. For what it's worth, I'll agree with you that we ought to embrace the whole patrimony of the Church. I think it's wonderful that the Maronites continue to say the Institution Narrative in their Eucharistic Prayer in Aramaic.

For that matter, I'm happy that ALL Catholics may gain a plenary indulgence on any day by reciting or singing the Akathistos hymn or the Paraklesis (as of the 1999 Enchiridion Indugentiarum) on any day in a family, church, or other gathering of the faithful.

We certainly ought to embrace the whole heritage of the Church. This includes embracing the heritage of the Roman Rite. Not only should all Roman Rite Catholics be able to chant the Ordinary in Latin (as Vatican II specifically requires), but we ought to be able to have a translation of the Roman Missal that does not obscure the meaning of the original (thus preventing us from actively participating in the liturgy).

I'm all for embracing the rites and popular devotions of the East as well, and do so in many cases (I can recommend the Melkite Publican's Prayer Book. This doesn't preclude me from wanting to embrace the particular heritage of my own rite.

The very basics of our faith and liturgical life depend upon good translations.

Is the translation currently in use good, though? It robs the faithful of a good chunk of the Scriptural references in the Missale Romanum, it dumbs down theological realities, and it lacks the poetry that should elevate people to an encounter with God.

The idea that the new translation is incomprehensible is ridiculous. Sure, there are a small handful of new words for people to learn, but many of the changes, particularly in the propers, actually convey the Church's teachings with greater beauty, poetry and clarity.

Maybe the new translation isn't perfect, but it offers English speaking Catholics an excellent opportunity to better understand their faith. Resistors like Bishop Trautman are only souring the faithful to the Mass they will soon celebrate and discouraging them from taking advantage of the great opportunity to come to better understand our faith that these changes present

Where would I fall along the spectrum? I like the readings done in a language I can understand, preferably my native tongue. In my opinion, if the readings are done in a language that people don't understand without having to read a translation, then the purpose of proclaiming the readings has been erased. I don't want to have to read the readings through mass. I can read them just as easily at home. But often listening to them can give a different perspective.

However, if the entire rest of the mass was in Latin (with the exception of the homily, I don't know anyone who knows Latin well enough to do that) I would be fine with that. Everything else gets repeated every week, at every mass. It wouldn't take as long as people think it would to begin understanding the prayers without the need for a translation.

Have I made up my own version, not my intent. This is just what I feel.

After attending the Traditional Roman Rite (Latin) Mass a few times and using a hand Missal (with the Latin and Vernacular side by side) you will have absolutely NO PROBLEM following the Mass... indeed because you will read these prayers over and over again... you will tend to memorize and understand them.

As to the readings... they are usually chanted in Latin and then read in the Vernacular and of course the homily is in the Vernacular.

With a more complete Hand Missal you will have all the readings for the whole year written right there in the vernacular... which is very useful if you happen to attend the Traditional Rite Mass in a country where they do not speak your language... you will still FULLY PARTICIPATE in the Apostolic and Traditional Divine Liturgy.

Bishop Trautman really needs to give this a rest. We tried his approach, with the "new and improved, banal and trite English language" and it failed. People left in droves. I suspect most Catholics like sacral language, they like transcendence. If Hollywood can figure this out when they portray Catholic liturgy in the movies, why can't Bishop Trautman, who appears to have more in common with Calvinists than Catholics.